Opinion
02-C-473-C.
December 20, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff's motion to adjust the schedule for briefing the cross-motions for summary judgment filed in this case is DENIED. Plaintiff suggests that it will help reduce the amount of paper the parties are required to file in the case if he can file a reply to defendants' opposition to his motion for summary judgment at the same time that he opposes defendants' motion. While that may be true, I am not willing to disturb the schedules already established by the magistrate judge for briefing dispositive motions. If plaintiff is serious about reducing the amount of paper he must submit in connection with the motions for summary judgment, he may wish to consider withdrawing his motion altogether. If he were to choose this route, he could respond directly to defendants' proposed findings of fact and use the same opportunity to propose additional findings of fact and evidence as the rules governing motions for summary judgment allow.
Plaintiff also has filed a motion to sanction defendants for filing a motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. That motion is DENIED.